Steward requests/Permissions: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 185: Line 185:
:[[wikt:it: Discussioni_utente:Discanto|Now]], sorry, I forgot--[[User:Wim b|Wim b]] / [[User talk:Wim b|[ t ]]] 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:[[wikt:it: Discussioni_utente:Discanto|Now]], sorry, I forgot--[[User:Wim b|Wim b]] / [[User talk:Wim b|[ t ]]] 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}} <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 09:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}} <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help?</font>]]</small></sup></b></i> 09:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

==== جواد@fa.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = <!--don't change this line-->
|domain = fa.wikipedia
|user name = جواد
|discussion=
}}
Please remove my sysop access.Regards [[user:جواد|<span style="color:blue;">Javad</span>]][[user talk:جواد|<span style="color:red;">|Talk</span>]] <small>(21 Ordibehesht 1392)</small> 15:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


=== Miscellaneous requests ===
=== Miscellaneous requests ===

Revision as of 15:40, 11 May 2013

Shortcut:
SRP

This page is for requests to have stewards grant or revoke administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights on Wikimedia projects which do not have a local permissions procedure.

Old sections are archived. The list of archives is below.

  • Requests for bot flags are handled at SRB, and requests for global permissions are handled at SRGP.
  • If you are requesting adminship or bureaucratship, and your wiki has a local bureaucrat, submit your request to that user or to the relevant local request page (index).
  • For urgent requests, such as to combat large-scale vandalism on a small wiki, contact a steward in the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel. In emergencies, type !steward in the channel to get the attention of stewards. Otherwise, you can type @steward for non-urgent help.

Other than requests to remove your own access or emergencies, please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community.

Quick navigation: Administrator | Interface administrator | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Miscellaneous | Global permissions

(translate | edit)

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page

1. Place the following code at the bottom of the appropriate section below: 

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- don't change this line -->
 |domain    = <!-- such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

2. Fill in the values:

  • domain: the wiki's URL domain (like "ex.wikipedia" or "meta.wikimedia").
  • user name: the name of the user whose rights are to be changed (like "Exampleuser"). In case you're requesting access for multiple bots, leave this field blank and give a list of these bots in your remarks
  • discussion: a link to the local vote or discussion about the rights change (for example, "[[ex:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#ExampleUser]]"). This should normally be for at least one week, but no more than three weeks (if so, you'll need to restart the process).

3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

Confirmation of signing confidentiality agreement

Certain permissions (notably CheckUser and Oversight) additionally require users to sign a confidentiality agreement. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also sign the confidentiality agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. The request is placed on hold temporarily, until the receipt has been formally confirmed by the Office.

Requests

COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below: 

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    =
 |user name =
 |discussion= 
}}

Administrator access

Steward requests/Permissions/Sysop-header

Alexander Mikhalenko@ru-wikiversity

Status:    In progress

Voting has ended. Our bureaucrat is not elected (see below), so I ask for rights of admin here. Alexander Mikhalenko (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blocked in ruwiki for vandalism? Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What it is related to ru.wikiversity? On how many I remember problems in other communities shouldn't be considered. I know this situation, there the person systematically finished and he emotionally didn't sustain, but why we have to consider it? --SergeyJ (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just a problem in one community. It is just plain vandalism. I do not think a vandal can be a sysop in any Wikimedia project. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is vandalism? This is the person much and well writes about German. And that that at it once wasn't sustained by nerves - I don't think that this basis to call him the vandal --SergeyJ (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same person will be awarded by ruwikimedia as the most active participant wikiversity [1]. --SergeyJ (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can not a vandal be awarded a ru.wikimedia prize? Especially since you plainly told them to whom it should be awarded.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps but for this reason he isn't a vandal, and the good participant. --SergeyJ (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last two blocks sound like a rage quit, apparently he was not really happy and wanted to get his account locked. The first one is indeed more difficult to explain, this is plain vandalism as a retaliation for smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also say that it is emotional failure, instead of systematic occupation by vandalism just for the hell of it. It explained that it had problems in life and here it yet didn't understand - he simply took offense then. (Я и говорю, что это эмоциональный срыв, а не планамерное занятие вандализмом ради удовольствия. Он пояснял, что у него были проблемы в жизни и тут его еще не поняли - он просто обидился тогда. ) --SergeyJ (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I'm not exactly understanding what this ruwikimedia prize is or how it is relevant to this request. From what I understand, this user has no less than an indefinite block for vandalism on ruwiki with talk page access revoked, which is obviously a concern and perhaps the user should explain the circumstances that led to the block and what it's all about. Also, could anybody kindle explain whate these two blocks that "sound like a rage quit" are? Are we talking about the last two entry on the block log on ruwiki? Snowolf How can I help? 19:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was talking about the last two entries. Apparently, the user wanted to get blocked but nobody wanted to block him, so that he decided to vandalize articles so that he finally gets blocked (and succeeded). Note that I have no position or no interest of either having or not having this user as admin on ru.wv, frankly, I do not care about this project. I am just talking as someone who reads Russian and is somewhat familiar with the practices of ru.wp.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and it is much appreciated. Yeah that really is unacceptable from administrators, especially given how recent it is and how if one ragequits by vandalism once, they might very well ragequit that way twice by using their admin tools. Let's see what explanation the user has for these disturbing events. Snowolf How can I help? 19:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to be blocked at first. And the first blocking was not for me. My account was available to two people - it belonged to me and my roommate. The account was created not by me. I usurped it in the Russian Wikipedia and renamed an account "Alexander Hoffmann" to "Alexander Mikhalenko". The second blocking was made through my fault. I really had problems in my personal life, other users in the Russian Wikipedia began to criticize me because of small defects in my articles. Then one of administrators removed two pages in my personal space. He decided that these pages violate Wikipedia rules. Actually these pages contained information on me and on my activity in Wikipedia. Many users have such subpages. It very angered me. I recognize that I arrived incorrectly and sometime I will be rehabilitated in Wikipedia. During an award ceremony which you already discussed I will publicly ask forgiveness for users. I never planned to undermine activity of projects of Wikimedia Foundation. I promise that I will never make vandal editings and I will never trade on the status of the administrator. You said that I wanted to be blocked. It partly truth. After blocking I told thanks on the personal page. I thought that I will never return back. Later more than half a year a lot of things changed. I understood that was too quick-tempered. I think that former sins which I realized shouldn't influence my wiki-career in the future (you shouldn't take the word "career" literally). There are in the Wikiversity few active users, but there are many anonymous vandals. And one administrator doesn't manage to eliminate a consequence of their vandalism. I want to help to the actual administrator. Alexander Mikhalenko (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maikeli@fjwiki

Status:    On hold

(this request was added by an IP, at 02:12, 6 May 2013‎ UTC). --MF-W 02:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please make a local request/announcement first. --MF-W 02:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MKar@or.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Hello, nearly two months back, Mrutyunjay (MKar) abandoned his admin access, which was his own decision. But now at Village pump (in Odia), 4 users including me requested him to be an Admin again. And he accepted. Thank you. :) -- ɑηsuмaη «T» 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was started on 2 May, so  On hold until 9 May (1 week). --MF-W 22:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-05-10. --MF-W 18:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know yet, how you guys decide the time duration! or precisely to give temporary/permanent admin access. But I think others have got permanent Adminship on Odia Wikipedia. -- ɑηsuмaη «T» 05:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunsvotti@fi-wiktionary

Status:    Locally handled

I'm an administrator at the Finnish Wiktionary (fi.wiktionary.org), and User:Hunsvotti was approved as administrator, 100 % support. He should be given the administrator rights (voting has ended). Our local bureaucrat is not available on short notice, so I decided to ask for the rights here and the local bureaucrat will make the rights permanent when he'll be available (I'll leave a message on his talk page ASAP). Please, ask for clarification/elaboration if necessary. --Hartz (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please send an email and a talk page note to TJ first? We have granted in the past rights on wikis with bureaucrats if they're inactive (no problems with that) but I'd preferr if we gave him a couple of days to respond to see if our intervention is necessary. I'd propose to set this on hold for 48 hours and, if there's no action by TJ; flag the user as the vote looks valid. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought that it would be quicker to request the rights here, but I have now sent an email and a talk page note to TJ. --Hartz (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If (s)he doesn't respond, we will promote. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. This request can be closed. --Hartz (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed request: taken care of by local 'crat. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bjarki S@is.wikisource

Status:    In progress

Hey. I requested administrator privileges on is.wikisource in January and got local support from the local community. The request was closed by giving me three month temporary adminship that expired on 19 April. For the record I think should have gotten a permanent adminship but if the stewards disagree, then I would like an extension of the temporary adminship. Bjarki S (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place a new request locally and link to it here. -- Tegel (Talk) 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyya Ghosh@bn-wiktionary

Status:    In progress

Hey I requested adminship on bn.wiktionary and got local support from the local community I don't know how I got that support. But I want this right for the sake of that wiktionary. Because there are no one available. Only admin is not available. That's why I want this right.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

Steward requests/Permissions/Crat-header

SSJ@ruwikiversity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Status:    Not done
--SergeyJ (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done the community is too small for the election of local bureaucrats and the election the level of support from locally active users necessary for the election of a local 'crat anyway. I should note that with SUL finalization coming soon the need for local 'crats is in any case greatly reduced so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Snowolf How can I help? 09:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it is known the minimum level isn't defined globally by stewards. And the matter already rose earlier. Vote agrees ruwikiversity accepted in community to norms took place and you have to provide the rights of the bureaucrat. I remind that stewards don't solve the matter and can't interfere with development to community. The community not small, and has simply big turnover of staff in particular because of lack of stability of administrators and the bureaucrat. (Как известно минимальный уровень не определен глобально стюардами. И данный вопрос уже подымался ранее. Согласно же принятыми в сообществе ruwikiversity нормам голосование состоялось и вы должны предоставить права бюрократа. Напоминаю, что стюарды не решают данный вопрос и не могут припятствовать развитию сообществу. Сообщество не малочисленное, а имеет просто большую текучесть кадров в частности из за отсутствия стабильности администраторов и бюрократа. ) SergeyJ (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how the "stability of adminstrators and bureaucrat" has to do with anything, but in any case, ruwikiversity has too small of a currently active community for the appointment of 'crats. Snowolf How can I help? 12:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, Snowolf, our community is small, but it isn't an occasion not to grant to us the right to appoint administrators (independently, natürlich). I don't understand, why "not done". SSJ is a worthy candidate for a post of the bureaucrat. --Alexander Mikhalenko (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, community size is one of the two factors we weigh in deciding whether to fulfill the request or not. I should note that administrators should never be appointed, always elected, and you already do so indipendently, stewards merely weigh the consensus and ensure that no abuses take place. We routinely decline requests to grant 'crat rights to communities which are too small to support one, and this is the case right now. With 3 administrators and 9 active users, it's really not big enough for 'crats. Snowolf How can I help? 12:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not distort only. Now number of active participants around 15-20, and many aren't registered, and govern anonymously. As for administrators it is a separate problem - from these the 3rd only I am active constantly. And if I distract for couple of days - nobody can delete spam or make other administrative decisions. And it is valid, administrators and bureaucrats aren't appointed (!) but you decided that you can approve or not vote in community and to solve when to them is necessary or not the bureaucrat it isn't correct. The question of administrators will be the following - too tell, what we are small? So can you awake to carry out a role of the constant bureaucrat in ruwikiversity? But also it after all won't be. Especially, once again I will remind, what smaller communities have the bureaucrats - why you then don't remove them? I don't want to argue with you but why you solve for community, since what time the steward has on this right? You want to note any abuse or this prejudiced opinion? I ask this controversial question to consider one more steward.
Давайте только не будем передергивать. Сейчас число активных участников около 15-20, причем многие не регистрируются, а правят анонимно. Что же касается администраторов это отдельная проблема - из эти 3-х только я являюсь активным постоянно. И если я отвлекаюсь на пару дней - никто не может удалять спам или принимать другие административные решения. И действительно, администраторы и бюрократы не назначаются (!), но Вы решили, что Вы можете одобрять или нет голосование в сообществе и решать когда им нужен или нет бюрократ - это не правильно. Следующим будет вопрос о администраторах - тоже скажите, что мы малы? Так може Вы будите выполнять роль постоянного бюрократа в ruwikiversity? Но и этого ведь не будет. Тем более, еще раз напомню, что куда более мелкие сообщества имеют своих бюрократов - почему вы их тогда не снимаете? Я не хочу спорить с вами, но почему Вы решаете за сообщество, с каких пор стюард имеет на это право? Вы хотите отметить какое то злоупотребление или это предвзятое мнение? Я прошу этот спорный вопрос рассмотреть еще одним стюардом. --SergeyJ (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly all I understood of this comment is that you're saying I'm distorting stats (I'm not, only 9 users had made 10 or more edits in the current month at the time of my reply) and that I'm biased. Snowolf How can I help? 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked to consider this situation once again and at least to designate the real minimum requirements [3] --SergeyJ (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what a long retired former WMF staffer has to do with this. I also think I've explained at some length why I feel this request cannot be fulfilled. Snowolf How can I help? 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Problems in that you have no exact criteria. And you don't recognize our local criteria.--SergeyJ (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not, but the situation at hand is clearly lower than any possible criteria :) I still don't understand why you've contacted a former WMF staffer+steward who's long retired from these projects... Snowolf How can I help? 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no nothing clearly. Discussion begun because of me [4] so for 2 years ended with nothing. Now our community became more than then, but again you consider it not enough. Though the need for administrators and bureaucrats for community is - and the community approves it. And I addressed to Bastique as it in a course of a situation was then. --SergeyJ (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, you don't carry out: "Stewards should not override consensus, such as whether or not a user should be given a particular user right. Their task is to implement valid community consensus within the bounds of the Foundation's goals. If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it. Stewards should always be neutral. They can vote in elections, but when executing the result of the election the steward has to act according to the result, even if they disagree with the outcome." + "If a steward has doubts about a request, they should let the other stewards know so the request will not be granted by another steward." [5] --SergeyJ (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, in discussion Minimum_voting_requirements it is spoken about 15 voices at 80% of a support and it is brought arguments that it can be for many. In this case for me 11 people and 100% support voted. I don't think that it is possible to treat as "clearly lower than any possible criteria". --SergeyJ (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here [6] the criterion is offered to a thicket "10 votes + 80% support" . Why you ignore what was already discussed and is taken out in heading of this section? --SergeyJ (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here the recent example [7] - as only 4 voices and to the participant is appropriated a flag of the bureaucrat. And you still awake to say, what in my case there aren't enough voices? From where such double standards? --SergeyJ (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here still a clear example where the steward wrote "Done. 10 votes in favor and none in opposition after nearly two months is good enough for me. --Daniel Mayer" [8]. Therefore I resolutely object that in IDENTICAL cases different decisions would be made. --SergeyJ (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply one last time, and I don't know whether you're being serious or not: you first selectively quote an inconclusive RfC from ages ago that however states right where you point that 6-10 admins are required for the appointment of a 'crat; then you move on to point to an example of a local 'crat promoting, how is that relevant to our practices, I do not understand or get; then you point to an example from 2010 when current best practices were not in place. Now please find something else to do, good night. Honestly, you'll get nowhere with selective quoting of discussions that fully support our current practices plus digging up some remove and not related examples. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but you will not obtain it thru these means. I think I've replied enough. Snowolf How can I help? 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

CheckUser access

Steward requests/Permissions/CU-header

None currently

Oversight access

Steward requests/Permissions/OS-header

Rschen7754@wikidata

Status:    Not done

Closed as succesful. Regards, Bene* (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but unfortunately that can't be granted since there's only one oversighter :( --Rschen7754 09:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per OS#Access, two oversighters are needed per wiki. Snowolf How can I help? 09:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, sorry. Did a completely mess. -- Bene* (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually quite all-right, I think most of the times in this cases the request still passes by here so it's formally recorded and such. Snowolf How can I help? 09:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of access

<translate>

  • If you're requesting the removal of your own permissions, make sure you're logged in to your account. If you have multiple flags, specify which you want removed. Stewards may delay your request a short time to ensure you have time to rethink your request (see [[<tvar name="self-discussion">Talk:Steward_requests/Permissions/2011#Self_requests</tvar>|previous discussion]] on 24 hour delays); the rights will not be restored by stewards once they are removed.
  • To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, provide a link to the discussion, with a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion. However, as bureaucrats of some wikis may remove users from the administrator or bureaucrat group, please see also a [[<tvar name="crat-rem">Bureaucrat#Removing_access</tvar>|separate list of these specific wikis]].
  • To request the removal of another user's permissions for inactivity, link to your local inactivity policy. If your site does not have inactivity policy, the global policy [[<tvar name="aar">Admin activity review</tvar>|Admin activity review]] applies.
  • See the [[<tvar name="usage">#Using this page</tvar>|instructions above]] for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.</translate>

Discanto@it.wiktionary

Status:    Done

Many and many copyright violations --Wim b / [ t ] 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold awaiting community decision. Mathonius (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
community consensus: 4 pro and 0 against for the desysop--Wim b / [ t ] 19:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has the user been notified of the start of the desysop proceedings against him? Snowolf How can I help? 10:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, sorry, I forgot--Wim b / [ t ] 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Snowolf How can I help? 09:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

جواد@fa.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Please remove my sysop access.Regards Javad|Talk (21 Ordibehesht 1392) 15:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Steward requests/Permissions/Misc-header

MPelletier (WMF)@test2wiki

Status:    Done

Gusta@pt.wikivoyage

Status:    Not done

I'm a sysop there and i would like importer rights to import pages of a main category of pt-wp. Gusta (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered to enable transwiki importing (a right assigned to admins)? --MF-W 23:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, the one that you need to ask at bugzilla? Gusta (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It has the advantage that it only needs to be set up once and then all sysops can use it. For importer rights, there needs to be a separate election. --MF-W 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For now best left that way. When we go out of beta, we can put this extension.
Such as Gusta not know how to use the tool, I asked him to make a list of what should be imported, after we request to a global importer, or I take the flag and do. I think it's better. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 10:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know how to use the tool. If i remember right we didn't enabled import over there. I withdraw the request because we don't need to import anything anymore. Thank you. Gusta (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Steward requests/Permissions/Footer

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=5478152"